NEWS: Possible Air Strikes Against Iran and Syria

Originally posted by Expositor
Iraq as a base of operations? For what exactly, for running around and getting shot at by the local population.

Stategically insignificant as far as operations against Iran and Syria are concerned.

Back in 2004 General Richard Cody was quoted as saying "Are we stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right now? Absolutely," since that statement more troops have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reserves are in serious peril in the long term as far as recruiting and retention are concerned, but not as far as capability to deal with an immediate threat. We've got the hardware, and we've still got most of the people we need, so we can deal with Iran at present.
In the event of hostilities with China we could turn our problem around in about six months with a limited draft to the reserves, and it would take far more than six months for China to mobilize and deploy a sufficient invasion force- hell it took us more than that to put Desert Storm together.

The US military is not capable of starting let alone mainting a war against another nation, after all it had to increase its personnel pool by 30,000 to continue with the war on terrorism.

30,000 men is nothing, and we can certainly fight another war. We can't underatke another long-term occupation. I fully agree that the occupation of Iraq is going badly and is not being managed appropriately. Does that mean we can't route the Iranian and Syrian armies, then just pack up and leave? Of course not- we can do that whenever we like.

The problem with American forces is not a lack of ability, it's poor wielding by this administration, which may not be an accident.

We should have stayed out of the urban environments and controlled access to water, food, communications, and travel routes, then conducted methodical grid-searches of the cities to clean out weapons caches and to ID citizens.
We should have kept the Iraqi units intact and kept warehoused their equipment, screened them, removed loyalists, then fielded those Iraqi units as a police force. We went in in Spring 2003 without enough preparation and now it's the Winter of 2005 and we're still there. We should have taken our time, Gone in the Fall of 2003 or even the Spring of 2004, and we should have done it with closer to 300 thousand troops. If we'd done that, we could have reduced to present strength almost immediately as we began to field the restructured Iraqi forces, and we'd be cutting back to only a few thousand advisors at present.

The thing about that is that it would have meant making Iraq independent much faster and spending more money on the mission and less on padding the pockets of American contractors who are buddy-buddy with American politicians. I think that would have gone against all of the secondary and tertiary goals which really made the primary mission of eliminating Saddam seem worthwhile to this administration and its supporters in congress.

Do not be fooled by this Splendid Little War- given a war of necessity, such as would develop if our attempts to stop the Iranian nuclear program blew up into a large and dangerous war, America gets things done. It's only the peripheral goals which the current admin. has allowed to shape the primary mission which have stood in the way of success in Iraq.

America can take Iran, America can take Syria, America can take Russia, America can take China- period.

For the US to expand the war into Iran and/or Syria is a bad idea. Iraq and Afganistan still appear dicey.

However, I think its in the best interest of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Cuba, and Venezuela to provoke such an action to further their own interests.

The leaders of all of those nations have no problem sacrificing people for the greater cause.

All they have to do to create that action is to stay on course.

See my signature below. This decade is about to get alot more bloody.

Anyone that was a teenager on 911 will never see a day of peace in their teen years.

Instead, they are more likely to see combat. Being led into battle by Gulf War I's generation X'ers that were never supposed to amount to anything.

The good news is that in the next Presidential election, knowone in the White House now wants anythingt o do with it in 2009.

The bad news is that pulling out of the middle east will be just as much a disaster as staying.

Snickers; no matter how you slice it, it comes up peanuts.

has this story been on the big-smart-media machine? yet?

Or is it a - christmas fairy-tale?

And we will all have nukes for christmas...uhmm . And celebrate the birth of christ.. And the holy star.. And bla bla bla..

Is it real..?

Im not gonna go Balony - I just want to know if it's real and we all gonna die.. Even Europe are in danger here man... Russia - china..What ever..
I just want to know if im gonna buy me a good old Nuke bunker for christmas. Or forget about it - and just have a normal christmas.

Can you imagine - the attack starts around new year... BOOM BOOM BOOM...
I hope CNN are ready for the big party then - cause it's gonna be great entertainment.. Merry Christmas Donald Duck -

We all living in America , America is Wunderbar...
Co-Ca Cola SUPERSTAR ...



[edit on 22-12-2005 by Ram]

Although if you are thinking in terms of occupying those nations, you are correct that it would be unwise (I reitterate briefly that simply blowing up their weapons or their leaders would be a turkey-shoot) I think you're way off base in saying that it is in their best interest to provoke us.

It's in China's best interest. It's possibly in India's interest. Maybe Russias- I'm sure they love to see us running around spending money hand over fist on things other than ourselves.
Any nation which actually succeeds in getting attacked is not going to get anything positive out of it though. Even if the regimes survive, they take huge economic losses and lose much of their military security. If their long-term goals are to make money, become respected in the international community, perhaps defeat enemies, etc then their goals are not served in the least.
It's great to be a minor thorn in America's side for these countries, but they don't want to get shreded just to annoy us.


In a simpler day and age (read: before nukes and the widespread acceptance of the high-minded nonsense which has yet to do any service to humanity whatsoever) the answer for America would be simple. Start carving our enemies up and taking what's worth keeping so that the enemies are done for good.
Of course the thing these days is that there's this strange notion floating around that it's not OK to win a war, definately not OK to gain anything from it, and above all it is absolutely wrong to ever ever change the status quo.
The thing I find strange about this is not the presumption against the use of force. I can see why peace is preferable to violence. What I don't get is this notion that the borders on a map shouldn't shift, that foes cannot be conquered, etc. What makes a nation so sacred? How did the nations get their current borders to begin with, except by conquest?

Originally posted by Indy
This is honestly just brilliant the way we meddle in middle eastern affairs. Another war will spread our resources and defenses so thin that the Chinese army could walk down the streets of DC unopposed. How can our troops defend OUR country which they were hired to do when they are spread all over the world defending everyone elses? This poor management of foreign policy is leaving the US mainland a sitting duck.

One thing America can do is an overwhelming aerial bombardment.

It's always been the strategic strongpoint in American force doctrine. A massive aerial assault that will completely destroy the enemies ability to wage war within a matter of hours.

I imagine it'll go in stages, all of them timed within a 12hr window.

1. B2 Spirits fly penetration missions to take out enemy command & control centres. Secondary targets will be power stations and air defence radars.

2. B1-B Lancers follow B2's and take out nuclear facilities with nuclear armed bunker buster weapons. They'll be acompanied by Israeli fighters to deal with the radar emplacements.

3. British SAS, US Special Forces & Israeli Commandos take out nuclear materials and support facilities and evac. Assassination of high ranking nuclear scientists would also be a logical step.

4. B52 saturation bombing on Iranian troop concentrations, airfields, runway denials and heavy industry. Also, wild weasel missions will be performed to open the door for a larger strike force of warplanes.

5. Waves of American & Israeli planes comprise the second wave designed to shut down the Iranian ability to wage war and mop up remaining targets.

This isn't a "hearts and minds" operation. They're going to try to get in and take them out and do it as quickly as possible. It is a very real scenario.

And hey, nothing will take your mind off a war like another war.

Great - now you guys are allready planning the war...
Is it real?
Im still way behind scedule.. Do we need nuke-suits?
I feel SO ignored.. hahaha

What ever... Smartass's

You know we have nukes - we could just fire them off - better do IT IN a hurry...
THIS IS NOT POLITICS anymore ... Just insanity..
Im off..Before i start pissing my pants.. LOL*

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Ram]

With an attack like this Iran would be fully justified in using nukes if they had it. Lob one out into the gulf and they can take out the entire US fleet (or most of it). At that point it doesn't matter what we do to them because in one shot they will have virtually eliminated our ability to wage war. It would take years to rebuild our fleet and I'm not sure we'd be able to hit them back with a nuke without risking bringing the entire region into the conflict. And that is critical when you consider a number of nations in the region have nukes.

so we conclude that war is not always the best solution after all i hope!

I still want to know how we are going to pay for the war against Afghanistan and Iraq before we even think about touching Iran or Syria. If we can't pay for it then we should be involved in it. The US is pretty much broke as it is.

you awnsered your own question, thats why you need to go in= O I L

Lets vote on it.

Who thinks we are going into Iran before 2009 and who thinks we arent?

Please keep an active tally.

I think we will attack.

Thats 1 for we will attack and 0 for we wont.

I do not believe we will go into Iran at all. Everyone please wake up China and Russia are allies now and everyone is going to deal with Iran diplomatically. You all have done a great job of stating all of the exact reasons these allies would not go to war with us at all. What is the sense of China losing thier mass manufacturing profits from the US to invade us for who knows what reason?

Also the only other nations in the region with nukes is Pakistan and Israel.

And Afghanistan is under NATO control now.

As a matter of fact the US will be reducing troop numbers in Afghanistan by 3500 in srping 06

As amazing as it sounds, we would have strong support for a war with Iran (under the present ruler) and perhaps Syria...

Most of the EU is scared of Iran...they are essentially a neighbor
Many countries fear a nuclear capable Iran...
we do also.

In short, unless the president of Iran dissapears, then chosing a war now is the best option, rather than wait for them to be ready (because they are most definitley getting ready.)
everyone knows that i am anything but a war monger, but Iran is a real threat (unlike Iraq)

There is no way we would destroy the governments of Iran and Syria without being willing to install US approved governments in their place. That would take many troops we do not have available at this time. To do otherwise would be an act of foolishness on the part of the US gov't.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by redhat]

Originally posted by Indy
With an attack like this Iran would be fully justified in using nukes if they had it. Lob one out into the gulf and they can take out the entire US fleet (or most of it).

That's a good one, tell me another! Do you any concept of how big the US fleet is compared to what we've got in the gulf? We're could lose everything weve got in the gulf and still be fine- we'd be hard up for amphibious transports- but we already are because they aren't THAT important, except mainly for strutting around looking scarry when there's small trouble somewhere near the ocean.

As of Jan 2005 the US Order of Battle in Iraq for warships is as follows:

PT boats less than 10% of our total
4 Island Class Patrol boats (4 in the gulf out of 49 in the fleet)

Attack Subs 4% of our total
2 Los Angeles Class Attack Subs (2 out of 50 in the fleet)
*One of the Subs is the Memphis- it's been converted into a testbed for new technologies and we don't really want to lose it.

Carriers less than 1/10th of our total
1 Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier- Harry Truman. (1 of 9 Nimitz class in service, 1 of 13 Active carriers, 1 of 16 serviceable [counting 2 in innactive reserve and JFK in training reserve]) Plus we've got 3 decomissioned Forrestal class carriers at NISMF in Phili, just waiting to be rebuilt if we lose a ship, and the first CVX hull is to be laid down in 2008 and completed in 2013, but if we were in a hurry, we could have it sooner.

surface combatants less than 5% of our total.
1 Ticonderoga class Guided Missile Cruiser (1 of 23 Active- 4 more decomissioned in 2004, probably still available and NISMF)
2 Arleigh-Burke class Destroyers (2 of 45 in service, not counting those commissioned this year [source out of date]- 5 additional ships being commissioned in 2005 and 2006)

Amphibious Transports roughly 1/3 of our total
2 Wasp class Amphibious Assault Ships (2 out of 7, 1 more being commissioned in 2006)
2 Austin class LPDs (2 of 11, 1 more decommed in Sept 05)
2 Harpers Ferry class '___'s (2 of 4- there were 8 more scheduled but the Clinton administration cancelled one every single year from 1993 to 2000- apparently they just aren't that important)

Mind Clearers less than 1/10th of our total
2 Osprey class MHCs (2 of 12)
2 Avenger class MCMs (2 of 14)

At that point it doesn't matter what we do to them because in one shot they will have virtually eliminated our ability to wage war.

You must be high buddy. We've got naval forces coming out of our ears. Even heavy losses in Iraq wouldn't completely stop us from getting even.
The US has about 170,000 troops in Southwest Asia. The total number of active personel the US has is about 1.4 million plus about 200,000 currently activated reservists.
No major portion of our armor is in Iraq either- we've got about 8,000 Abrams.

I seem to remember hearing that we had some 16k tanks total- but I'm guessing that counts rusty old Pattons that are no longer intended for service.

I hate to break it to the doomsayers who wet your pants every time some pipsqueak nation (Iraq before Desert Storm comes to mind) threatens us with the mother of battles, but no 3rd world pipsqueak is going to succeed where Nazi Germany and the USSR each failed.
Jesus you people scare me sometimes- if you were in charge, "The Mouse That Roared" would be a documentary, not a commedy.

In regards to Iran (and North Korea) trying to acquire (possibly) nukes, I'll say this;

JFK, Soviet Union, Cuba

Let me add, WWII, A Bomb, another A Bomb

In regards to unpopular wars, I'll add this:
JFK, Viet Nam

Iran (and North Korea) will not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. It doesnt matter who is in the White House, a Democrat or a Republican.

If they continue, we will bomb them just as JFK almost pre-empted the Soviet Union before the Soviets called our non-bluff and backed down.

In doing so, the Soviets saved the world from a certain doomsday.

The United States will remain secure. If we get attacked, we take the world with us. Its US Policy 101 and any common knowledge of history will have you agreeing with me.

So, we'll drop the bombs and fire the missles and its up to them to decide how to react to that.

JFK didnt care what the world thought about his Cuban crisis or about Viet Nam. He didnt care what the world thought of his being only minutes away from ordering a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union.

Bush doesnt care either. You either go with his way or you get stream rolled his way.

He doesnt care what protesters or opinion polls state. He has a policy and he wont budge or bend from it in this regard.

All we can do is sit back and watch the show.

We will bomb Iran before 2009. Iran can lay there like a dog and let themselves get turkey-shot or they can try to fight back and let themselves get turkey-shot.

If someone sticks a gun in your back and says your gonna die, you can die fighting or you can die surrendering.

Can we occupy Iran? Honestly, if we take off the kid gloves, we can occupy any third world nation on the planet. Its a matter of if we want to occupy them or if we just want to bomb them backwards a decade or three.

But I am 100% certain that if Iran stays the course, we will bomb them.

Thats my opinion. All are welcome to disagree. I try to be open minded of differing points of view.

Peace (lol) and Merry Christmas.

(edited for spelling errors)

[edit on 12/25/2005 by Genfinity]

Originally posted by DYepes
......................
What is the sense of China losing thier mass manufacturing profits from the US to invade us for who knows what reason?

Because China does not have the resources to keep feeding their growing population and need land that will produce food for them. We had a thread about this topic a while ago where some Chinese official was saying exactly this. That China needs to get more land to harvest food and support their growing population.

Originally posted by DYepes
Also the only other nations in the region with nukes is Pakistan and Israel.

Well, you can thank France for selling the technology to make nukes to Israel.

For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war.

In the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt research reactor. However, the onset of the Suez Crisis a few weeks later changed the situation dramatically. Following Egypt's closure of the Suez Canal in July, France and Britain had agreed with Israel that the latter should provoke a war with Egypt to provide the European nations with the pretext to send in their troops as peacekeepers to occupy and reopen the canal zone. In the wake of the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations. This episode not only enhanced the Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliance on potentially unreliable allies, but also led to a sense of debt among French leaders that they had failed to fulfill commitments made to a partner. French premier Guy Mollet is even quoted as saying privately that France "owed" the bomb to Israel.

On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.
...........

Excerpted from.
www.fas.org...